Clinical Outcomes of 2nd- and 3rd-Line Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared clinical outcomes of 2nd- and 3rd-line regorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 48 patients were treated with regorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Thirty-five and 13 patients were initiated on 2nd- and 3rd-line therapy, respectively. We assessed the responses to and safety of the therapy. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical characteristics at the start of 2nd- or 3rd-line regorafenib therapy. The overall response rate of 2nd- and 3rd-line regorafenib was 20 and 8%, respectively. The disease control rate was 57 and 54%, respectively. Median overall survival (mOS) from the start of 2nd-line regorafenib was 17.5 months. mOS from the start of 3rd-line regorafenib was not obtained. Median progression-free survival of 2nd- and 3rd-line regorafenib was 4.9 and 2.3 months, respectively. mOS from 1st-line therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus sorafenib-regorafenib-lenvatinib was 29.5 months; that with lenvatinib-sorafenib-regorafenib was not obtained. Patients on 3rd-line therapy tended to have better Child-Pugh scores and tumor factors at the start of 1st-line therapy than other patients. CONCLUSION: Patients on 2nd- and 3rd-line regorafenib showed favorable responses. Good Child-Pugh scores and tumor factors may be associated with a better response rate and OS.

Real-world efficacy of sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir therapy for patients with hepatitis C virus-related decompensated cirrhosis.

AIM: Combination therapy with sofosbuvir (SOF) plus velpatasvir (VEL) is approved for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related decompensated cirrhosis. We analyzed the real-world efficacy of SOF/VEL therapy. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with HCV-related decompensated cirrhosis (25 and eight patients with Child B and C, respectively) were treated with SOF/VEL for 12 weeks. The HCV non-structural protein (NS)5A and NS5B drug resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) were determined by direct sequencing. RESULT: Thirty-two of 33 patients completed the treatment, but the remaining patient discontinued the therapy during third week of the treatment due to aggravation of hepatic encephalopathy. Serum HCV-RNA became negative during the treatment in all patients but relapsed after the end of therapy in five patients. In total, 28 out of 33 patients (85%) achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks following completion of treatment (SVR12). The SVR12 rate was 96% in patients with Child B, but significantly lower, at 50%, in patients with Child C (P < 0.05). In genotype 1b HCV-infected patients, all eight patients without baseline NS5A RASs, but only three of seven patients with RASs, achieved SVR12. Multivariate analysis identified Child B (odds ratio, 35.8 for Child C; P = 0.045) as an independent predictor of SVR12. Median serum albumin levels significantly increased only in patients who achieved SVR12. Child-Pugh scores improved in 16 of 28 patients (57%) following achievement of SVR12. CONCLUSION: The effect of SOF/VEL therapy is lower for patients with Child C. Improvement of hepatic function is expected after viral eradication with SOF/VEL therapy in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Comparison of Outcome of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Combined with Radiotherapy and Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy (HAIC + RT) versus sorafenib monotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and major portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). METHODS: This retrospective study included 108 HCC patients with PVTT of the main trunk or first branch and Child-Pugh ≤7. Sixty-eight received HAIC + RT and 40 received sorafenib. Patients were then assigned to the HAIC + RT group (n = 36) and the sorafenib group (n = 36) through case-control matching. The decision to treat with HAIC + RT or sorafenib was left to the attending physician. RESULTS: The median overall, progression-free, and postprogression survival were significantly longer in the HAIC + RT group than in the sorafenib group (9.9 vs. 5.3, p = 0.002; 3.9 vs. 2.1, p = 0.048; and 3.7 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.02, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified HAIC + RT (hazard ratio = 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.57; p = 0.01) as a significant and independent determinant of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HCC and major PVTT, survival was significantly longer in those treated with HAIC + RT than with sorafenib.

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy followed by sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HICS 55): an open label, non-comparative, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), evidence is unclear as to whether hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) or sorafenib is superior. We performed a prospective, open-label, non-comparative phase II study to assess survival with HAIC or HAIC converted to sorafenib. METHODS: Fifty-five patients were prospectively enrolled. Patients received HAIC as a second course if they had complete response, partial response, or stable disease (SD) with an alpha fetoprotein (AFP) ratio < 1 or a des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) ratio < 1. Patients were switched to sorafenib if they had SD with an AFP ratio > 1 and a DCP ratio > 1 or disease progression. The primary endpoint was the 1-year survival rate. Secondary endpoints were the 2-year survival rate, HAIC response, survival rate among HAIC responders, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients in the intent-to-treat population, the 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 64.0 and 48.3%, respectively. After the first course of HAIC, one (1.8%) patient showed complete response, 13 (23.6%) showed partial response, 30 (54.5%) had SD, and 10 (18.1%) patients had progressive disease. Twenty-three patients (41.8%) had SD with AFP ratios < 1 or DCP ratios < 1, and 7 (12.7%) had SD with AFP ratios > 1 and DCP ratios > 1. Thirty-seven patients (68.5%) were responders and 17 (30.9%) were non-responders to HAIC. In responders, the 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 78 and 62%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the results of this study, this protocol deserves consideration for patients with advanced HCC. This trial was registered prospectively from December 12. 2012 to September 1. 2016.

Comparison of clinical outcome of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma according to macrovascular invasion and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization refractory status.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with distant metastasis, unresectable HCC, and HCC refractory to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI). Also, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has been used for advanced HCC in Southeast and East Asian countries. However, clearer information is needed for choosing appropriately between these therapies. METHODS: The subjects were 391 HAIC and 431 sorafenibs administered at our hospital and related hospitals. In this case, cases that satisfy the following three conditions were targeted: (i) no extrahepatic metastasis, (ii) Child-Pugh A, and (ii) not having received treatment of both HAIC and sorafenib during the course. As a result, 150 cases of HAIC and 134 cases of sorafenib were analyzed this time. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the HAIC and sorafenib groups. TACE refractory status and MVI were factors contributing to overall survival (OS). Therefore, this study divided all cases according to those variables. The median survival time of MVI-positive and non-TACE refractory cases was significantly better with HAIC (13 months) versus sorafenib (6 months). However, in MVI-negative and TACE refractory cases, the median survival time of HAIC (8 months) was significantly poorer than for sorafenib (20 months). CONCLUSION: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization refractory status with HAIC and MVI with sorafenib were factors for poor prognosis. In particular, HAIC was significantly better than sorafenib as primary treatment in MVI and non-TACE refractory cases. It is necessary to consider these factors in treatment selection.

Effect of prolonged administration of pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy in genotypes 2a and 2b: propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis C genotype 2 patients show high susceptibility to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin therapy (PEG/RBV). However, the differences in response to therapy between genotypes 2a and 2b, and the efficacy of prolonged therapy for refractory patients have not been evaluated. We investigated the differences in response to PEG/RBV between each genotype and examined the efficacy of prolonged therapy. METHODS: A total of 343 chronic hepatitis patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 (2a: n = 195; 2b: n = 148) were enrolled in this study. All patients received PEG/RBV for 24 (24 week group, n = 242) or more weeks (prolonged group, n = 101). We analyzed the differences in virological response between genotypes 2a and 2b. Clinical and virological factors of patients in the 24-week group and the prolonged treatment group were matched using propensity score analysis, and the efficacy of prolonged therapy established by comparing time of serum HCV disappearance for each genotype. RESULTS: Virological response tended to be higher for genotype 2a compared with genotype 2b; however, there was no significant difference in sustained virological response rates between genotypes (2a: 78.3%; 2b: 70.2%; P = 0.19). After propensity score matching, the adjusted P-value for sustained virological response rate was significantly different for genotype 2b patients with undetectable HCV-RNA between weeks 5 and 8, and for genotype 2a patients with detectable HCV-RNA at week 8. CONCLUSION: Prolonged therapy with PEG/RBV may be effective when serum HCV-RNA is detectable at week 4 and week 8 for genotype 2b and 2a patients, respectively.

Efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients who failed daclatasvir/asunaprevir therapy: pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, daclatasvir (DCV) and asunaprevir (ASV) therapy was the first IFN-free treatment to be approved, and thousands of patients have since been successfully treated, with an SVR rate of around 90%. The converse, however, is that around 10% of patients fail to achieve viral eradication and must be retreated using a different approach. This study is to evaluate treatment efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ribavirin in patients who failed to respond to DCV and ASV therapy. METHODS: Thirty patients were treated with 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ribavirin. We evaluated the rate of sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12) and examined the incidence of adverse events during ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ribavirin treatment. NS5A and NS5B resistance-associated variants (RAVs) in treatment failure cases were examined. RESULTS: The overall SVR12 rate was 86.7% (26/30). Large decreases in mean log10 HCV RNA levels were observed in patients without cirrhosis, and the SVR12 rate for these patients was 100% (12/12). In cases of cirrhosis, SVR12 rate was 72.2% (13/18). The common factors in treatment failure cases were the presence of liver cirrhosis and both NS5A L31M/I and Y93H RAVs. The frequency of RAVs did not change before and after treatment among patients who relapsed. CONCLUSION: Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with ribavirin is an effective retreatment option for patients with chronic hepatitis C who failed to respond to prior daclatasvir and asunaprevir therapy.

Comparison of Outcome of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy and Sorafenib in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Refractory to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization.

AIM: To compare the outcome of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with sorafenib monotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) refractory to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 123 patients with HCC refractory to TACE, with Child-Pugh A and free of extrahepatic metastasis, were divided into two groups: 65 received HAIC and 58 received sorafenib. Since the size of main tumor and portal vein invasion were significantly different between the HAIC and sorafenib groups, we selected 48 patients from the 65 patients of the HAIC group and 48 from the 58 patients of the sorafenib group. The model used one-to-one matching between the two groups using the case-control method matching method. The clinical characteristics of patients of the case-control HAIC (n=48) and sorafenib groups (n=48) were similar. Overall survival, time to progression and time to treatment failure (TTTF) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The median survival time and TTTF were significantly longer in the sorafenib group than in the HAIC group (15 and 12.2 months versus 8 and 4.4 months, respectively; p=0.021 and p=0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified male gender (p=0.008), relative tumor size <50% (p=0.012), α-fetoprotein <400 ng/ml (p=0.005), and treatment with sorafenib (p=0.001) as significant and independent determinants of better overall survival. CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC refractory to TACE, overall survival was favorable in those treated with sorafenib rather than HAIC.

Comparison of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus sorafenib monotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with distant metastasis, unresectable HCC, and those refractory to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI). The application of sorafenib has been approved by the Japanese Government-sponsored Medicare for unresectable HCC. In this retrospective cohort study we aimed to compare various aspects of HAIC with sorafenib in the treatment of Child-Pugh A patients with advanced HCC who were otherwise free of extrahepatic metastasis. METHODS: Altogether 177 patients with advanced HCC at Child-Pugh class A who were free of extrahepatic metastasis were retrospectively enrolled. The patients were divided into the HAIC group (n = 136) and the sorafenib group (n = 41), and were followed up until their death or withdrawal of therapy. Responses to treatment and overall survival were determined and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease were 5.9%, 25.0%, 40.4% and 21.3% in the HAIC and 2.4%, 2.4%, 43.9% and 41.5% in the sorafenib group, respectively. The response rate was higher in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (30.9% vs 4.8%). The median survival time was 10 months in both HAIC and sorafenib groups. In patients with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) by the case-control method, the response rate was higher in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group. Overall survival was longer in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (14 months vs 7 months, P = 0.005). Multivariate analysis identified MVI (hazard ratio 2.4, P = 0.018) as an independent prognostic factor of survival in the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Response rate to HAIC was higher than that to sorafenib monotherapy. Prognosis was favorable in HAIC responders despite MVI. HAIC might be a potential treatment option for advanced HCC without extrahepatic metastasis.